Men I Love: Second in a Series.

I have always had a little thing for Jimmy Carter.

Which, let's face it, is pretty much the only reason I picked up Kevin Mattson's new book "What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr President?" Jimmy Carter, America's "Malaise," and the Speech That Should Have Changed the Country. For one thing, I'm not a big history reader (unless it's about British history, or labor history, or the holy grail of my history nonfiction reading, British labor history); for another, that's not really a title that inspires a whole lot of "wow, I've got to read this one!"*

But I do find it interesting that there's actually a growing little subgenre of nonfiction books in which authors look at history and presidents through specific speeches**; I'm somewhat interested in speeches and rhetoric (as only the nerdy author of a public speaking handbook for librarians can be); and what the heck, it was only 217 pages long. 

The book takes as its subject the summer of 1979, primarily its gas shortages and cultural ennui, and examines how President Carter sought to address the energy crisis and what he described as America's crisis of confidence. One of the most interesting things (to me) about the story is how Carter sought to hear a variety of viewpoints, and duly invited groups of people (people other than politicians and lobbyists, note) to the White House to talk these issues over. When he was done, he charged his speechwriters with creating (with his input) the speech he would give on July 15, 1979. The entire text of the speech is also provided as an appendix, so you can read it for yourself, and I would do so:

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God,*** too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose...

We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate...We believed that our nation's resources were limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.

These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed." (p. 212-213.)

I won't lie to you; although it's not obnoxious, this is not an author who is being very critical of Carter, although he does point out his many and obvious missteps. But he's also an author who has managed to weave a compelling slice of history out of a speech that has been largely misremembered by an entire nation. If nothing else, he also does a good job of placing the speech and Carter's presidency in historical perspective as the one that paved the way for Reagan (and the Cult of Reagan and all that went with it), as evidenced in this quote:

"I remember the exact moment I knew Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter. The date was July 15, 1979." (Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's pollster.)

It's an interesting book. If you're up for a historical stroll through the late 1970s, this might be a good place to start. Now off with you, and have a good weekend.

*Or is it? I think it's kind of a clunky title, myself. I might have chosen How to Lose the White House: Endeavor to be Decent and Intelligent.

**David Maraniss's The Clinton Enigma is also a fabulous little book.

***I would guess that most atheists are probably not Carter fans.

Comments

[Thomas]

I am an aetheist and I like Carter a lot. To me he represents the good side of religion--unlike so many who think beating their self-righteous breast is all Christianity asks of them.

[Citizen Reader]

Hey, Thomas,
This is very good to know. I wasn't slamming atheists; it's just that I think his religion informed a lot of Carter's life and decisions, and I didn't know how that would play with an atheist crowd. I'm always glad to find another Carter fan.

[Laura]

I agree with Thomas - as an atheist myself, as far as politicians who speak openly of their religion go, Carter is actually quite palatable - did you catch his editorial about his split from the Southern Baptist Church over its treatment of women? That's the sort of critical Christian with integrity that I can get behind. These jerks who spout off about prayer and the lord and whatnot all while blithely devastating the environment and human rights, well, those you can keep. And man do we seem to have a lot of 'em!

[maggie]

My agnostic hubby likes Carter and his giving back to society. I like the way he says nuclear.

Hum? Do you have any one liners for librarians in your book?

[Tripp]

Since you love Carter and Andrew Bacevich, I suppose Bacevich write about the malaise speech. Shorter Bacevich (an ardent conservative) Carter right, Reagan wrong.

If not here it is:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/08/00018/

[Thomas]

Tripp: Thanks for that link. It was very interesting.

[Thomas]

Oh, and CR, I didn't think you were slamming aetheists at all. And although a non-believer now, I was an active Catholic for two decades and know my New Testament--and how far most "religious" politicians are from understanding the historically accepted teachings of Jesus Christ.

[Citizen Reader]

Laura,
I have found this all very interesting. I thought maybe the mixing of religion and politics/government would be discomfiting to some--it is to me and I'm not an atheist--so I was surprised to read these comments (in the best possible way).

I did see the news story about Carter's break of opinion with his church and thought then, I love this guy. I felt that way when I finished "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" too.

Yes, we do have a lot of spouting off types. That must be what people like in a politician, because they sure keep getting elected.

Tripp,
I do like Bacevich; thank you for the link. I'm going to read it tomorrow when I'm fresher. Weird, isn't it, how much the right and the left start to look like each other at the extremes? I find that very interesting too.

Thomas,
Politicians may know their religion, indeed, but I would agree with you that most of the basic tenets of those religions have passed them by.

[Citizen Reader]

Maggie,
I don't think I've ever heard Carter say nuclear!

I don't have any one liners; sadly. Nothing's worse than putting the pressure on people who aren't joke-tellers to tell jokes, so I rather steered clear of that area of advice.

Although I think I did share MY favorite joke:
Q: Why did the elephant paint his toenails red?
A: So he could hide in the strawberry patch!

and a close runner-up:
Cow 1: So are you worried about this mad cow disease?
Cow 2: Why should I worry? I'm a helicopter.

[Rachael]

I really like Carter. As a man, if not as a president. We could use a lot more politicians like him. And as an agnostic, his religion has never bothered me. I think he uses it in just the right way: as something that he uses to inform his own decisions, but not as something he uses to batter others.

[Citizen Reader]

Rachael,
I have been very interested to learn how many non-religious types really don't mind Carter; I wouldn't have thought that, really. I think your description of how he practices his religion is probably the reason why.

Politicians like him would never get voted in anymore. I firmly believe we want a short-sighted, vote-for-the-money system, and that's the way we vote, so that's what we get. Sad, but I always return to the John Bowe quote: "the system is working exactly the way it was set up to work."